I think I scared him off.
I know not everyone lives online, but when you post a reply like he did you generally stick around for the reply..he thought he had me :hehe:
Printable View
Slim pickings
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=proof...6000+years+old
You can carbon date it, I’ve done similar when studying, it’s not a difficult thing to do.
The thing is it’s pointless debating because you’ll just say it’s a test from god. Who plants dinosaur fossils and cross shaped proteins but won’t stop babies being born with aids or kids from dying of cancer.
Even if it was real who’d want to worship that.
Therer is an undeniable fat that there are many religions past and present, all maintained they are/were the only truth.
It is impossible for them all to be correct.
It is possible, or should I say probable, that they are/were all WRONG
To be clear on one point, I believe the way word theory is used in science is a bit different to our common, everyday parlance.
In science, a theory is used to explain the how or why. Even when this can be clearly observed, measured and tested. So even if we knew how gravity works on a sub atomic scale this would still remain a theory.
So a scientific theory isn’t a prior stage before establishing a fact, it’s something different altogether. Sometimes science can be dismissed as merely a ‘theory’ and so equal in credibility to any other speculation, but this really confuses how the word theory is used in a scientific context.
I won't engage with who has become the protagonist on this thread as it would be fruitless. It's just amusing that science (a.k.a. knowledge) has enabled many lives to be saved whereas patients all around the world may have perished if they were left to the vagaries of what knowledge and treatment that existed two thousand years ago when microbes, tectonic plates, particles, viruses and electricity was either absent or minimal. What we have subsequently learned has, in many cases, cured what would otherwise be incurable illnesses (regardless of whether they were supposedly sent by a deity as means of punishment), space travel, electronics, computers and a million other sophisticated things that would have probably been deigned as sophistry by illiterate people thousands of years ago.
I see in this thread that there still seems to be this ridiculous attitude about the fact that scientific theory can be wrong. Any intelligent person knows how science progresses and we know it is progressed as we learn more and that we previously understood may indeed be wrong. We learn something from observations and measurement and scientists make their best stab at what may well describe why and in the full knowledge that there may be more to learn. That educated guess may or may not be correct and may be partly correct based on the results and data hitherto. If more information comes to light or throws a spanner in the works then that becomes the most important fact to concentrate on in the pursuit of greater knowledge and accuracy. This is not a failing nor a ridiculous dogma that seeks to defend ancient theories in any way. It is the polar opposite. If someone doesn't have the nous to understand that (as is obvious in this thread) there is no point in stating what to most people is the bleedin' obvious.
Yes I've long been aware that gravity is a theory, no problem. But that's only a third of the issue - "we don't currently know" and "we haven't yet figured out how..." is a problem if people are going to insist that science has come up with THE definitive answer.
If they actually knew already knew HOW it all began then why build the Hadron Collider for a total cost of about $4.75 billion and an annual ongoing cost of about $1 billion per year?
Sure, actual science is wonderful, at 10p or even billions of dollars, guesswork is just guesswork.
You mean someone like me!
Rewind, I was informed that your story was >> "widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true" - so as you've said above, I asked for documentation. If you agree with the need for this then you too need the same, because you just said "would like a bit more evidence than just being earnestly told that something definitely definitely happened it really did.."
So we both await the definitive evidence we require.
Peer reviewed scientific journals are the most accurate evidence you can get.
Scientific theories aren’t just being told something and believing it. There are open source studies that back everything up.
If someone wanted to prove something they could go and repeat the same studies them self.
If you consider the bible on the same level fair enough. But it isn’t and it means there is no point discussing it because you won’t accept genuine evidence.
The large hadron collider is used to understand particle physics theories at a deeper level that previously able. It’s not being built to prove the dawn of the universe :hehe:
I just went from sexy knickers and a boob job for an 80 year old mother to a barney about how old the earth is.
Memo to self never skip 11 pages on an internet forum.
There is. It's part of a constellation that someone thought was shaped like a mythical archer.
https://earthsky.org/favorite-star-p...lactic-center/
Dead in trespasses and sins, is the tragic irony.
I'll be more than happy to provide reasons why I side with God's Account. But first it is important that the false certainty that has produced the attitude that sporns > "the big bang is widely accepted in science to be absolutely ****ing true" is exposed as being the empty faith based section of 'science' that it really is; and the silence we've witnessed for half a week (and counting) re ACTUAL evidence is loud :sherlock:
People like Dawkins and Hitchings spend a great deal of time tearing the religious lot to bits
The religious lot wriggle their way out of it and keep coming up for air
I admire their persistence
My view is if there is a god and I have no belief there is , that he let's me in and I am fed grapes by women dressed in silk
Thank you God
Dawkins has even been declared an embarrassment to atheists by atheists, and he's now too scared to debate most Biblical apologists. As for the "religious lot" (I won't bother explaining again why they are not religious) - they have nothing to wriggle away from; in fact they welcome ANY discussion on the issue because they have the confidence of knowing they have something reliable; rather than the shambles that is scientific speculation that seems to require another major guess every few years. Of course the majority will accept each guess as perfect and reliable, mainly because science has done amazing things in other fields - yet some are waking up to the fact that if each former guess was wrong, then why would the current version be any different?